Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Reading Between the Lines
Categories: rant
"Daddy, how do birds fly?" my five year old asks. "Well son, it has to do with Newton's third law of physics, which states
'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. You see, the stream of air passing over the curved wing of the bird creates a stream on the underside that is traveling faster than the stream above, resulting in a lower pressure below which lifts the wing and thus, the bird." "Oh, I get it now daddy!"....not. Would we ever answer this way to our five year old? No way. Why not? Because we want to give them an answer that is actually useful to them, that they can add to their understanding and build upon later.
What troubles me, though, are those times that I see a definate lack in the way that questions are addressed by those in the ColdFusion community who actually do know the answers. It's as though the Knowledgable are so deep into their understanding of the topic that they have completely forgotten how to transfer that knowledge to those who are just starting out. In fact, sometimes the responses received to newbie-type questions are so laced with terms and phrases that have no place in the asker's understanding that the responses THEMSELVES generate questions on top of the original question. It can already be a rather long and painful trek up the J-Curve, depending on where one is starting from; but to receive answers that are so far above one's head can be a source of discouragement.
My point then: we should take the time and care to respond to questions in the context and in the perspective of the person asking it. If a 5 year old asks us a question about how birds fly, do we respond with vocabulary and explanations appropriate for a 4th year college engineering student? No, we don't, because we want the 5 year old to get the understanding they're seeking. Just because nobody in our community is 5 years old, though, doesn't mean they can automatically digest information to which they cannot relate.
Consider the following question and response (the one that made me feel the need to share my thoughts on this):
Question
"I am a newbie to reactor, and also to flex2. I'm curious to know if others
are using FUSEBOX with reactor AND flex2, or if the use of flex2 makes
fusebox kinda unnecessary. What is the best use/layering of these
frameworks? Does flex become the controller and the view, thereby
eliminating the need for the MVC architecture of fusebox? Is reactor simply
the model behind the entire flex application?"
Response
"Well, Reactor is the persistence mechanism for the model, so it is part of the model, but not the whole thing. You’ll probably want to wrap it with a service layer for any business rules and to provide an API, and you may or may not want to create a façade to that API that is Flex specific . . ."
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??????
I'm sure the responder meant nothing but the best, and it is to their credit that they took the time out of their busy schedule to even draft a response; but I gotta say, that answer is completely useless to the person who initially asked the question. It's filled with acronyms and terms the user likely is unfamiliar with and it wrongly assumes that the asker has a level of comprehension of these concepts that is far greater than that which can obviously be seen in their question. I don't cast blame at those whose understanding is just so deep that they're miles and miles ahead of "The Rest of Us", but I would encourage them to be a little more thoughtful in their efforts to assist by remembering their audience; their audience being the person who asked the question.
So, how can those who possess the knowledge sought be even more helpful to the self-acknowledged newbie person? By taking a few moments to read between the lines. A lot can be derived, and easily so, about the asker's current level of understanding just by the way they phrase their question. Don't be oblivious to that, home in on it and let THAT be the context in which you respond. Let's take the preceding question as an example.
"I am a newbie to reactor, and also to flex2...." The individual is a self-proclaimed newbie, admitting quite humbly that they have just barely scratched the surface on these subjects and at best probably have only a rudimentary understanding of the concepts behind the terms. Duly noted.
"...I'm curious to know if others are using FUSEBOX with reactor AND flex2, or if the use of flex2 makes fusebox kinda unnecessary...." It's obvious that their understanding isn't all that deep, reconfirming what we already believed. They've probably read a few articles, looked through the code of a few tutorials...taken the time to try and get a grasp of what each of these items are and do and how they relate contextually to one another. But by the way the writer blatantly overlaps methodology with technology in an almost interchangable way further reinforces that the place they're coming from is one of elementary knowledge, at best, of the subjects they're asking about.
The remainder of the question does contain some buzzwords (MVC, model) used in an appropriate context. But describing Fusebox as an MVC architecture when it really is not (even though it could be used in that way) tells me that either the person doesn't understand what MVC really is, they don't understand what Fusebox really is, or they don't understand either one all that well. It's not really relevant which they do or do not understand; the point is that the question this person is posing is beyond their current understanding of the subjects they're asking about. That is a fact that should be recognized by the person who feels the desire to help this individual. Therefore the most useful response would first address the things this person is lacking in their foundational knowledge, either by taking the time to draft that information, point them to recommended reading material, and/or suggest some exercises or tutorials this person could do to ramp up their understanding. Only after the hidden questions are addressed should their actual question be addressed, if at all.
It should be said that some of which is "perceived" by reading between the lines may be incorrect; but better to err on the side of assuming too little than too much.
So what use is a response to a question for which the asker obviously doesn't even understand what they're asking? Not much use at all. My whole point with this post then is to do nothing more than encourage those who have the knowledge to answer a question to make sure they take the time to read between the lines just a little so that the answers given might truly be of more use to the person asking.
Doug out.
'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. You see, the stream of air passing over the curved wing of the bird creates a stream on the underside that is traveling faster than the stream above, resulting in a lower pressure below which lifts the wing and thus, the bird." "Oh, I get it now daddy!"....not. Would we ever answer this way to our five year old? No way. Why not? Because we want to give them an answer that is actually useful to them, that they can add to their understanding and build upon later.
What troubles me, though, are those times that I see a definate lack in the way that questions are addressed by those in the ColdFusion community who actually do know the answers. It's as though the Knowledgable are so deep into their understanding of the topic that they have completely forgotten how to transfer that knowledge to those who are just starting out. In fact, sometimes the responses received to newbie-type questions are so laced with terms and phrases that have no place in the asker's understanding that the responses THEMSELVES generate questions on top of the original question. It can already be a rather long and painful trek up the J-Curve, depending on where one is starting from; but to receive answers that are so far above one's head can be a source of discouragement.
My point then: we should take the time and care to respond to questions in the context and in the perspective of the person asking it. If a 5 year old asks us a question about how birds fly, do we respond with vocabulary and explanations appropriate for a 4th year college engineering student? No, we don't, because we want the 5 year old to get the understanding they're seeking. Just because nobody in our community is 5 years old, though, doesn't mean they can automatically digest information to which they cannot relate.
Consider the following question and response (the one that made me feel the need to share my thoughts on this):
Question
"I am a newbie to reactor, and also to flex2. I'm curious to know if others
are using FUSEBOX with reactor AND flex2, or if the use of flex2 makes
fusebox kinda unnecessary. What is the best use/layering of these
frameworks? Does flex become the controller and the view, thereby
eliminating the need for the MVC architecture of fusebox? Is reactor simply
the model behind the entire flex application?"
Response
"Well, Reactor is the persistence mechanism for the model, so it is part of the model, but not the whole thing. You’ll probably want to wrap it with a service layer for any business rules and to provide an API, and you may or may not want to create a façade to that API that is Flex specific . . ."
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot??????
I'm sure the responder meant nothing but the best, and it is to their credit that they took the time out of their busy schedule to even draft a response; but I gotta say, that answer is completely useless to the person who initially asked the question. It's filled with acronyms and terms the user likely is unfamiliar with and it wrongly assumes that the asker has a level of comprehension of these concepts that is far greater than that which can obviously be seen in their question. I don't cast blame at those whose understanding is just so deep that they're miles and miles ahead of "The Rest of Us", but I would encourage them to be a little more thoughtful in their efforts to assist by remembering their audience; their audience being the person who asked the question.
So, how can those who possess the knowledge sought be even more helpful to the self-acknowledged newbie person? By taking a few moments to read between the lines. A lot can be derived, and easily so, about the asker's current level of understanding just by the way they phrase their question. Don't be oblivious to that, home in on it and let THAT be the context in which you respond. Let's take the preceding question as an example.
"I am a newbie to reactor, and also to flex2...." The individual is a self-proclaimed newbie, admitting quite humbly that they have just barely scratched the surface on these subjects and at best probably have only a rudimentary understanding of the concepts behind the terms. Duly noted.
"...I'm curious to know if others are using FUSEBOX with reactor AND flex2, or if the use of flex2 makes fusebox kinda unnecessary...." It's obvious that their understanding isn't all that deep, reconfirming what we already believed. They've probably read a few articles, looked through the code of a few tutorials...taken the time to try and get a grasp of what each of these items are and do and how they relate contextually to one another. But by the way the writer blatantly overlaps methodology with technology in an almost interchangable way further reinforces that the place they're coming from is one of elementary knowledge, at best, of the subjects they're asking about.
The remainder of the question does contain some buzzwords (MVC, model) used in an appropriate context. But describing Fusebox as an MVC architecture when it really is not (even though it could be used in that way) tells me that either the person doesn't understand what MVC really is, they don't understand what Fusebox really is, or they don't understand either one all that well. It's not really relevant which they do or do not understand; the point is that the question this person is posing is beyond their current understanding of the subjects they're asking about. That is a fact that should be recognized by the person who feels the desire to help this individual. Therefore the most useful response would first address the things this person is lacking in their foundational knowledge, either by taking the time to draft that information, point them to recommended reading material, and/or suggest some exercises or tutorials this person could do to ramp up their understanding. Only after the hidden questions are addressed should their actual question be addressed, if at all.
It should be said that some of which is "perceived" by reading between the lines may be incorrect; but better to err on the side of assuming too little than too much.
So what use is a response to a question for which the asker obviously doesn't even understand what they're asking? Not much use at all. My whole point with this post then is to do nothing more than encourage those who have the knowledge to answer a question to make sure they take the time to read between the lines just a little so that the answers given might truly be of more use to the person asking.
Doug out.
Subscription Options
You are not logged in, so your subscription status for this entry is unknown. You can login or register here.
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
I totally agree with you, just because one knows the lingo and buzzwords of the community and the newest technologies the community is using, doesn't mean that everyone does. For instance an "accessor" and "mutator" are nothing more than fancy words for "getter" and "setter", it would make the learning for most much easier if we could just remember one thing... "KEEP THINGS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE", after all isn't that what makes great teachers? Those who have infinate amounts of knowledge, but know how to impart it to their subjects in a way they will understand. One can "look" smart with their words, or "be" smart by how they come across.
Posted by joe gautreau on September 14, 2006 at 12:51 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
As the heartless person who actually posted that response, I thought I should make a comment!
Firstly, mea culpa. Revisiting it, the answer probably wasn't that useful to the respondent. In my defense, I have a bunch of projects to deliver, have just been responding to a bunch of comments on my blog, I saw the question on the Reactor list and I wanted to get some kind of response (I remember what it was like when I had questions and sometimes got no answers!).
The problem is that while we all want to help, we're usually all best at (and most interested in) helping people grappling with problems we've just overcome, we're still working on or we're fast approaching.
To put it into context, I'm sure you would do a great job of explaining to your five year old son how birds fly. Straw poll: how may OTHER peoples kids have you taken the time to explain that to so far this year? Is it because the other kids dont need to know how birds fly, or have you been busy with other things?
The one good thing about an incomprehensible response is that it is really easy to ask follow up questions to the bits you cant figure out for yourself, and I certainly respond to such comments either on my blog or on the lists.
My blog often deals with fairly complex issues. As Sean Corfield pointed out he "wasn't sure what most CF'ers would make of it". That's fine. If Sean, Brian, Doug, Mark Sami and a bunch of other thought leaders in the CF community happen to skim it once in a while, it was worth the effort. I think people like Charlie Arehart, Ray Camden and Sean Corfield hav an amazing gift and patience for taking complex topics and making them very comprehensible. I am unfortunately less talented at (and focused on) that.
The truth is that with other stuff to do, eventually you get tired of explaining over and over what each element is and exactly how they fit together, so you start to use shorthand. I do agree that such shorthand is confusing for people just starting out in the field, but the alternative isnt to take the extra time to craft the perfect response it is to hit delete and get on with the rest of your day. If I was the recipient, Id still prefer an incomprehensible response (which I could use as the basis for follow up questions) to no response at all.
Firstly, mea culpa. Revisiting it, the answer probably wasn't that useful to the respondent. In my defense, I have a bunch of projects to deliver, have just been responding to a bunch of comments on my blog, I saw the question on the Reactor list and I wanted to get some kind of response (I remember what it was like when I had questions and sometimes got no answers!).
The problem is that while we all want to help, we're usually all best at (and most interested in) helping people grappling with problems we've just overcome, we're still working on or we're fast approaching.
To put it into context, I'm sure you would do a great job of explaining to your five year old son how birds fly. Straw poll: how may OTHER peoples kids have you taken the time to explain that to so far this year? Is it because the other kids dont need to know how birds fly, or have you been busy with other things?
The one good thing about an incomprehensible response is that it is really easy to ask follow up questions to the bits you cant figure out for yourself, and I certainly respond to such comments either on my blog or on the lists.
My blog often deals with fairly complex issues. As Sean Corfield pointed out he "wasn't sure what most CF'ers would make of it". That's fine. If Sean, Brian, Doug, Mark Sami and a bunch of other thought leaders in the CF community happen to skim it once in a while, it was worth the effort. I think people like Charlie Arehart, Ray Camden and Sean Corfield hav an amazing gift and patience for taking complex topics and making them very comprehensible. I am unfortunately less talented at (and focused on) that.
The truth is that with other stuff to do, eventually you get tired of explaining over and over what each element is and exactly how they fit together, so you start to use shorthand. I do agree that such shorthand is confusing for people just starting out in the field, but the alternative isnt to take the extra time to craft the perfect response it is to hit delete and get on with the rest of your day. If I was the recipient, Id still prefer an incomprehensible response (which I could use as the basis for follow up questions) to no response at all.
Posted by Peter Bell on September 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Without trying to be mean, I am not very fond of people who call out others on their blogs. I mean, you didn't use the name, but I for one knew exactly who you were referring to when I read this as I am sure others will. Perhaps your time would be more appropriately used responding to the question as you saw fit and leaving it at that. I mean, as you admit, this person was only trying to help.
That being said, I would also consider that this persons answer was (IMO) technically correct. I get your point that it isn't necessarily a beginners answer, but to go into the depth you seem to want to answer this question could possibly fill a book. I mean, so now you want to explain MVC, and then Reactor, and then Fusebox and well, now let's cover how they interact from a beginner's perspective? Your rules would seem to put a big burden on anyone answering questions on these list on their own time, for free and with the best of intentions.
That being said, I would also consider that this persons answer was (IMO) technically correct. I get your point that it isn't necessarily a beginners answer, but to go into the depth you seem to want to answer this question could possibly fill a book. I mean, so now you want to explain MVC, and then Reactor, and then Fusebox and well, now let's cover how they interact from a beginner's perspective? Your rules would seem to put a big burden on anyone answering questions on these list on their own time, for free and with the best of intentions.
Posted by Brian Rinaldi on September 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Hi Joe,
Just want to make one distinction. Some people use the fancy words to sound fancy (usually in job interviews). Sometimes we just use the fancy words because they are quicker. The biggest benefits of patterns is that they provide a shared vocabulary. If I couldn't talk about DAOs, MVC, iterators, decorators and abstract factories I'd never have the time to architect applications - I'd be too busy reinventing the wheel!
Just want to make one distinction. Some people use the fancy words to sound fancy (usually in job interviews). Sometimes we just use the fancy words because they are quicker. The biggest benefits of patterns is that they provide a shared vocabulary. If I couldn't talk about DAOs, MVC, iterators, decorators and abstract factories I'd never have the time to architect applications - I'd be too busy reinventing the wheel!
Posted by Peter Bell on September 14, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
For that matter Doug, in reviewing my email, I do not see your response to this question on the list...or am I missing it?
Posted by Brian Rinaldi on September 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
I would have to say that everyone here is right! Peter was trying to do the right thing with all good intentions and that shouldn't be dismissed, I think the whole point isn't to jump on one person's case but rather to invoke some thought into all of our minds when we respond to questions asked by others. I don't think Doug was trying to "Call Out" Peter at all otherwise he would have used his name, but rather he was just making a point, based on many other observations of this practice in the community.
Posted by joe gautreau on September 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Hello Peter - I agree with you, I was just giving an example. I just think we must always remember our audience, and sometimes our audience isn't on the same level as we are, if you are responding to Sean Corefield, or Ray Camden they by all means be yourself, but if responding to a newbie they we need to consider more of where they are coming from. Otherwise they will never grow, after all we didn't learn what we know without it first being "broken down" to us. I respect your comments, and I am not trying to say you cannot use those terms, but I do believe in time and place.
Posted by joe gautreau on September 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
As observed, I definately did NOT mean to poke anybody with sharp pointed sticks, especially the person who was kind enough to take time to answer the question, and I in fact commend them for it. The question/response example i used was just the one that caught my eye this morning...but it happens fairly commonly in every forum. No disrespect was intended, nor a "call out"; no, not at all. I do apologize if any disrespect is perceived.
I believe the real source of my need to share my thoughts was moreso that I can relate to the person who's investing their time to try and traverse that dreaded J-Curve of learning, myself only having taken it on about 6 months ago. My purpose of the post was nothing more than food for thought, a gentle reminder of how it is possible and is a good thing to read between the lines of a person's question in order to craft the more useful responses, that's all. Peter's point about weaving in terms the reader may not be familiar with is also well taken, as sometimes adding a bit of unfamiliar vocabulary used in context can in itself increase the poster's own.
I believe the real source of my need to share my thoughts was moreso that I can relate to the person who's investing their time to try and traverse that dreaded J-Curve of learning, myself only having taken it on about 6 months ago. My purpose of the post was nothing more than food for thought, a gentle reminder of how it is possible and is a good thing to read between the lines of a person's question in order to craft the more useful responses, that's all. Peter's point about weaving in terms the reader may not be familiar with is also well taken, as sometimes adding a bit of unfamiliar vocabulary used in context can in itself increase the poster's own.
Posted by dougboude on September 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Brian R: with all due respect, i have to disagree with your stance that this post was "calling out" a specific person. i didn't read it like that at all. doug was simply providing an example of what he is writing about. i think that helps clarify the post. adding that the poster "took the time out of their busy schedule to even draft a response" certainly acknowledges that we're all busy, and it was a nice enough to have even made the effort. if (and that's a big -if-) it was a criticism, i didn't see it as anything more than a constructive criticism (of course, we can always agree to disagree...i recognize that how one reads something like a blog post is subjective).
but the point of the post is valid (IMHO), and shouldn't be lost in whether or not Doug "called somebody out". knowing how to do is one thing. knowing how to teach is another.
i don't answer a lot of posts on lists like CF-Talk (i do what i can, but when you've got folks like Mike D, Sean C, Barney B, Dave W, etc... ). however i do spend a good deal of time on Easycfm.com, which is comprised of a lot of folks who are new to CF (or new to programming altogether). whenever I answer a question there, I do my very best (and make no mistake, sometimes i fall short) to try to not only answer the question, but to explain why the answer is the answer. I don't just want to solve the problem at hand for the person who posted the question. I want to give them the tools to a) solve it themselves and/or b) solve a similar situation in the future should it (or a situation like it) come up again.
I think the bottom line is... yes, we're all very busy. beginner, intermediate, expert level...doesn't matter. our plates are all full. but if you're going to take the time out of your busy schedule to help somebody...don't you want to do everything you can to make sure that time wasn't spent in vain?
to clarify, i'm not suggesting that Peter should have written a book in response to the question. and honestly, I'm not even talking about Peter's post. I'm just saying that, in general, when answering a question, it may be more time up front to explain a little more in depth...but that time should (in an ideal world) be seen as an investment. Taking the time to answer in a way that explains or teaches might mean the person who asked the question will be asking fewer questions in the long term.
Hope that all made sense :)
but the point of the post is valid (IMHO), and shouldn't be lost in whether or not Doug "called somebody out". knowing how to do is one thing. knowing how to teach is another.
i don't answer a lot of posts on lists like CF-Talk (i do what i can, but when you've got folks like Mike D, Sean C, Barney B, Dave W, etc... ). however i do spend a good deal of time on Easycfm.com, which is comprised of a lot of folks who are new to CF (or new to programming altogether). whenever I answer a question there, I do my very best (and make no mistake, sometimes i fall short) to try to not only answer the question, but to explain why the answer is the answer. I don't just want to solve the problem at hand for the person who posted the question. I want to give them the tools to a) solve it themselves and/or b) solve a similar situation in the future should it (or a situation like it) come up again.
I think the bottom line is... yes, we're all very busy. beginner, intermediate, expert level...doesn't matter. our plates are all full. but if you're going to take the time out of your busy schedule to help somebody...don't you want to do everything you can to make sure that time wasn't spent in vain?
to clarify, i'm not suggesting that Peter should have written a book in response to the question. and honestly, I'm not even talking about Peter's post. I'm just saying that, in general, when answering a question, it may be more time up front to explain a little more in depth...but that time should (in an ideal world) be seen as an investment. Taking the time to answer in a way that explains or teaches might mean the person who asked the question will be asking fewer questions in the long term.
Hope that all made sense :)
Posted by charlie griefer on September 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Thanks for clarifying. I think your overall point is a good one, but by choosing to pick on someone's words it seemed to me a bit like the teacher who showing the class an example of a poorly done assignment without naming names, but everyone in the class knows exactly who that is (those of us on the Reactor list would have anyway). Perhaps you could have made your point without picking on any individuals specific response. The rest could have been dealt with on the list.
I am seriously not trying to be mean here, its just that I answer questions here and there on lists and know I wouldn't want to have to worry that in trying to help someone I would get criticized in a public forum.
I am seriously not trying to be mean here, its just that I answer questions here and there on lists and know I wouldn't want to have to worry that in trying to help someone I would get criticized in a public forum.
Posted by Brian Rinaldi on September 14, 2006 at 1:36 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
"I am seriously not trying to be mean here, its just that I answer questions here and there on lists and know I wouldn't want to have to worry that in trying to help someone I would get criticized in a public forum."
Brian...again (and again, just IMHO), it's a constructive criticism (if a criticism at all). if that had been my post that doug had quoted, i'd have appreciated his input. doesn't mean i'd have had to take any actions on my part...just because a constructive criticism is offered, doesn't mean it's...y'know...right :)
and FWIW, i wouldn't have known it was Peter who made the post if Peter hadn't outted himself :)
Brian...again (and again, just IMHO), it's a constructive criticism (if a criticism at all). if that had been my post that doug had quoted, i'd have appreciated his input. doesn't mean i'd have had to take any actions on my part...just because a constructive criticism is offered, doesn't mean it's...y'know...right :)
and FWIW, i wouldn't have known it was Peter who made the post if Peter hadn't outted himself :)
Posted by charlie griefer on September 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
If it is of any consolation, if we are learning we are always on both sides of this topic. A post I'm currently reading mentions:
"Apart from achieving high intentionality in modeling domain concepts, and promoting reusability and adaptibility, a generative domain model simplifies the process of manufacturing variants of a component / module through changes in externalized configuration knowledge. The model needs to have a unified architecture based on the commonalities of the domain with appropriate declarative hooks for plugging in variabilities."
(http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-your-domain-model-generative.html for anyone who is interested)
Any you thought MY response was unintelligible!
Best Wishes,
Peter
"Apart from achieving high intentionality in modeling domain concepts, and promoting reusability and adaptibility, a generative domain model simplifies the process of manufacturing variants of a component / module through changes in externalized configuration knowledge. The model needs to have a unified architecture based on the commonalities of the domain with appropriate declarative hooks for plugging in variabilities."
(http://debasishg.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-your-domain-model-generative.html for anyone who is interested)
Any you thought MY response was unintelligible!
Best Wishes,
Peter
Posted by Peter Bell on September 14, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
If your first Entity Relationship Diagram (#1) needs a bean, is it called:
geterdone?
geterdone?
Posted by psenn on September 14, 2006 at 2:03 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
You know, I actually just went back to the list to see what I'd posted. No question I am often a little acronym happy and have been known to give answers that require a little more explanation, but in this case I wasn't responding to the original question at all.
Teddy Payne had responded:
The MXML in Flex references the model, which is typically remote objects (CFC, WebServices, XML) and defines the view, so it is an MVC onto itself.
Reactor is essence is the model.
Teddy
I actually responded to HIM pointing out (as Doug H did later) that Reactor isn't the model but just how the model stores stuff in the database. It wasn't meant for the original questionner at all!
OK, enough with beating a dead horse. Good point well taken (even if not perfect example!).
Best Wishes,
Peter
Teddy Payne had responded:
The MXML in Flex references the model, which is typically remote objects (CFC, WebServices, XML) and defines the view, so it is an MVC onto itself.
Reactor is essence is the model.
Teddy
I actually responded to HIM pointing out (as Doug H did later) that Reactor isn't the model but just how the model stores stuff in the database. It wasn't meant for the original questionner at all!
OK, enough with beating a dead horse. Good point well taken (even if not perfect example!).
Best Wishes,
Peter
Posted by Peter Bell on September 14, 2006 at 2:14 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Charlie, perhaps the difference in perception has to do with that I knew exactly who it was as soon as I read the response (and before Peter outted himself). I also think the input as it related to Peter's specific post would have seemed more constructive to me if it were posted to the list, but alas there was no response whatsoever that I saw on the list. It could have gone something like, "While Peter is technically correct in his answer, he may be using terminology that you aren't familiar with, so I would like to clarify and perhaps fill in the gaps..."
The larger point he is making is a valid one. I have also discussed on my site that the OO terminology can seem overwhelming at first and you can feel like the only one who doesn't understand what people are talking about. I just think this point can be made without the need to cite any individuals. People answer questions on these lists spontaneously. Sometimes they are lengthy and detailed and sometimes they are not...a lot of that has to do with how mcuh time we may or may not have at that particular moment. I just don't think we need to be deeming what responses are appropriate or not...doing so might dissuade others from posting (this is also just IMHO).
The larger point he is making is a valid one. I have also discussed on my site that the OO terminology can seem overwhelming at first and you can feel like the only one who doesn't understand what people are talking about. I just think this point can be made without the need to cite any individuals. People answer questions on these lists spontaneously. Sometimes they are lengthy and detailed and sometimes they are not...a lot of that has to do with how mcuh time we may or may not have at that particular moment. I just don't think we need to be deeming what responses are appropriate or not...doing so might dissuade others from posting (this is also just IMHO).
Posted by Brian Rinaldi on September 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Hi Doug,
You should have just linked the poster to your lexicon and we'd all have been good. I might quibble with a couple of the details, but it is a great intro to the most common terms!
http://www.dougboude.com/documents/dougboudeslexicon.cfm
You should have just linked the poster to your lexicon and we'd all have been good. I might quibble with a couple of the details, but it is a great intro to the most common terms!
http://www.dougboude.com/documents/dougboudeslexicon.cfm
Posted by Peter Bell on September 14, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
I was going to respond, but this is silly that I have register in order to get new comments. So I won't bother... no offense Doug, but is registering absolutely necessary?
Posted by Peter J. Farrell on September 14, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Wow... didn't realize my little post had made such an impact in an entirely different place on the net!
As the person who posed the original question, I can offer some unique insight, so I'll do so.
I have been CF developer since 1997. Was published in the CFDJ once, and have been using fusebox 3 since it came out. Only recently have I taken on:
Fusebox 5
MVC
Reactor
Flex
There are things about my post that would allow viewers to assume a certain skill level on my part, and there are things about the post that might not make my skills (or lack thereof) so apparent.
While it is frustrating to receive a more complex answer, what I have learned as a person who in only a couple short years has gone from being able to ANSWER a lot of questions about CF to a person who's ASKING a lot of questions is, it is my responsibility to take ALL the answers I'm given and "go that much further" on my own, before posting back an "I don't have a clue what you just said" type of answer. I think that's a very important point -- many newbies just "want the answer" but don't want to understand enough to ask intelligent questions....
"Well, Reactor is the persistence mechanism for the model, so it is part of the model, but not the whole thing. Youll probably want to wrap it with a service layer for any business rules and to provide an API, and you may or may not want to create a façade to that API that is Flex specific . . ."
The fact that fusebox "may or may not be" MVC is irrelevant... my use of fusebox 5 has always been MVC, so I posed it within the context of my own use.
I know what a persistence layer is, and I appreciated the clarification that reactor is not the "entire" model itself.
I am in fact fully "in the dark" about what a "service layer" may be, but using the correct terminology allows me to hunker down and do some more reading and learning. If I don't figure out what it means, I can post back and ask for either links to more information about what the service layer is, or ask for some actual code.
I know what an API is. If I didn't, again, a quick bit of Google research would tell me a great deal.
I am aware of what a facade is, from my study of design patterns in general. Again, if I didn't, I could look it up and if I don't find the answers I need, I can post back.
And the bottom line to me is, if I'm not willing to accept that I WILL receive technical answers on what should be expected to be a list that is covering a rather technical topic, and if I'm not willing or able to do the research FIRST to further understand the answers I'm given, then I must accept that the topics are still too advanced and there may be a different tier of learning I need to go through first.
What's great is, on the good lists, there's ALWAYS more than one good response, and the most technical one can and usually is expanded upon by other responders.
I too initially thought that this blog posting had the aura of a "body slam" against the responder, but I am able to see beyond my initial reaction to the fact that db is making a point that would certainly lower the frustration level for someone like me... though perhaps not as much as would be anticipated. Going from my quiet little world of fusebox 3, no CFCs, to this brave new land is going to be frustrating no matter what, and heavily technical answers can be viewed two ways: as a challenge to learn through reading and doing, or as only another obstacle since I wasn't just "given" the answer in a four-page 5-year-old-speak brochure.
In my daily activities, I inevitably get a call or email from a client that has simply refused to read a book, or even learn to do a basic search, before they pester me with a problem. I'm not talking about the most technical things, I'm talking about some very simple concepts. I find myself muttering "Geez, just do a little research first, before you type my email address in the TO field... just a little... please??"
I strive to not be that which I loathe... I welcome the answers, technical or not, so long as they continue to brush me in the right direction. And if more 'newbies' took that stance, you'd see a lot more intelligent questions out on the 'net, I believe.
And if you are reading this, and you too are an "Old Sage" at ColdFusion or web programming in general, but are "brand spankin' new" to these new-world OO concepts, DO NOT BE ASHAMED TO **SAY** YOU ARE A NEWBIE! Because, face it, YOU ARE. Be ready to read and research until your eyes fall out... and be ready to post questions only to get what appear to be cryptic-jargon-speak answers... on the surface. Don't let the jargon spewed from someone that really "gets it" push you away, but instead, laugh a bit at how funny it sounds, then dig in and 'translate' before you give up.
This is a post best viewed by BOTH experts and the newbies they try to help.
-- Experts, don't water down your answers TOO much... us newbies need to understand what it's like to fully immerse ourselves towards the more robust understanding of this new "language" -- not just have a growing catalog of answered questions. But, experts, be willing to FOLLOW UP so you can see just how far above the newbie's head you've gone. Help the newbie create a sample codebase of the concept(s) being discussed. Sample code benefits the entire community, as you well know. Pile up enough of it, and you'll get asked a lot fewer questions over time... or your own answers can point to the examples.
-- Newbies, suck it up and deal. This IS complex stuff. Read all the answers, not just the less technical ones. Decipher, decode, translate. THEN ask follow-up questions. Or, create a sample app or codebase, that the experts can then help you refine so that the abstract concepts become concrete. Yeah -- you might have to write code that you aren't getting paid for. If you are pointed to example code, rip it apart completely before you start a new message to a list.
And for all, remember we all learn differently, and write delicately about issues such as "appropriateness of responses"... lest we make our responders fearful and absent.
Now... back to the list! :)
Marc
As the person who posed the original question, I can offer some unique insight, so I'll do so.
I have been CF developer since 1997. Was published in the CFDJ once, and have been using fusebox 3 since it came out. Only recently have I taken on:
Fusebox 5
MVC
Reactor
Flex
There are things about my post that would allow viewers to assume a certain skill level on my part, and there are things about the post that might not make my skills (or lack thereof) so apparent.
While it is frustrating to receive a more complex answer, what I have learned as a person who in only a couple short years has gone from being able to ANSWER a lot of questions about CF to a person who's ASKING a lot of questions is, it is my responsibility to take ALL the answers I'm given and "go that much further" on my own, before posting back an "I don't have a clue what you just said" type of answer. I think that's a very important point -- many newbies just "want the answer" but don't want to understand enough to ask intelligent questions....
"Well, Reactor is the persistence mechanism for the model, so it is part of the model, but not the whole thing. Youll probably want to wrap it with a service layer for any business rules and to provide an API, and you may or may not want to create a façade to that API that is Flex specific . . ."
The fact that fusebox "may or may not be" MVC is irrelevant... my use of fusebox 5 has always been MVC, so I posed it within the context of my own use.
I know what a persistence layer is, and I appreciated the clarification that reactor is not the "entire" model itself.
I am in fact fully "in the dark" about what a "service layer" may be, but using the correct terminology allows me to hunker down and do some more reading and learning. If I don't figure out what it means, I can post back and ask for either links to more information about what the service layer is, or ask for some actual code.
I know what an API is. If I didn't, again, a quick bit of Google research would tell me a great deal.
I am aware of what a facade is, from my study of design patterns in general. Again, if I didn't, I could look it up and if I don't find the answers I need, I can post back.
And the bottom line to me is, if I'm not willing to accept that I WILL receive technical answers on what should be expected to be a list that is covering a rather technical topic, and if I'm not willing or able to do the research FIRST to further understand the answers I'm given, then I must accept that the topics are still too advanced and there may be a different tier of learning I need to go through first.
What's great is, on the good lists, there's ALWAYS more than one good response, and the most technical one can and usually is expanded upon by other responders.
I too initially thought that this blog posting had the aura of a "body slam" against the responder, but I am able to see beyond my initial reaction to the fact that db is making a point that would certainly lower the frustration level for someone like me... though perhaps not as much as would be anticipated. Going from my quiet little world of fusebox 3, no CFCs, to this brave new land is going to be frustrating no matter what, and heavily technical answers can be viewed two ways: as a challenge to learn through reading and doing, or as only another obstacle since I wasn't just "given" the answer in a four-page 5-year-old-speak brochure.
In my daily activities, I inevitably get a call or email from a client that has simply refused to read a book, or even learn to do a basic search, before they pester me with a problem. I'm not talking about the most technical things, I'm talking about some very simple concepts. I find myself muttering "Geez, just do a little research first, before you type my email address in the TO field... just a little... please??"
I strive to not be that which I loathe... I welcome the answers, technical or not, so long as they continue to brush me in the right direction. And if more 'newbies' took that stance, you'd see a lot more intelligent questions out on the 'net, I believe.
And if you are reading this, and you too are an "Old Sage" at ColdFusion or web programming in general, but are "brand spankin' new" to these new-world OO concepts, DO NOT BE ASHAMED TO **SAY** YOU ARE A NEWBIE! Because, face it, YOU ARE. Be ready to read and research until your eyes fall out... and be ready to post questions only to get what appear to be cryptic-jargon-speak answers... on the surface. Don't let the jargon spewed from someone that really "gets it" push you away, but instead, laugh a bit at how funny it sounds, then dig in and 'translate' before you give up.
This is a post best viewed by BOTH experts and the newbies they try to help.
-- Experts, don't water down your answers TOO much... us newbies need to understand what it's like to fully immerse ourselves towards the more robust understanding of this new "language" -- not just have a growing catalog of answered questions. But, experts, be willing to FOLLOW UP so you can see just how far above the newbie's head you've gone. Help the newbie create a sample codebase of the concept(s) being discussed. Sample code benefits the entire community, as you well know. Pile up enough of it, and you'll get asked a lot fewer questions over time... or your own answers can point to the examples.
-- Newbies, suck it up and deal. This IS complex stuff. Read all the answers, not just the less technical ones. Decipher, decode, translate. THEN ask follow-up questions. Or, create a sample app or codebase, that the experts can then help you refine so that the abstract concepts become concrete. Yeah -- you might have to write code that you aren't getting paid for. If you are pointed to example code, rip it apart completely before you start a new message to a list.
And for all, remember we all learn differently, and write delicately about issues such as "appropriateness of responses"... lest we make our responders fearful and absent.
Now... back to the list! :)
Marc
Posted by Marc on September 14, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Marc,
I was about to write a long comment, then you phrased my thoughts in a better manner than I had hoped to.
*applause*
-Joe
I was about to write a long comment, then you phrased my thoughts in a better manner than I had hoped to.
*applause*
-Joe
Posted by Joe Rinehart on September 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Although its been mentioned that this blog entry is starting to feel like beating a dead horse, Ive been thinking about it over the weekend, so I wanted to write about it. This kind of thing happens all the time whenever a group of people are together over an extended period. Eventually someone has a disagreement with someone elses opinion and it takes a tangent into peoples hurt feelings and even strife.
Hal Helms talks about how he takes interest whenever two equally intelligent people disagree on something. Id like to hear his take on all this.
Peter posted a response that Doug thought would seem unintelligible to Marc.
But the nature of the Internet is freedom of speech. I read that scribes used to lament the advent of the printing press because so much garbage was going to be printed in the future. Indeed, they were right. People can now read Danielle Steele instead of Holy Writ.
The Internet is a furtherance of that phenomenon. Now there is a mountain of information and people can read about the most inane stuff. So the reader is left to sift through the mountain of information, _but at least its out there_. Theres probably not a day that goes by without me turning to a colleague in amazement at how easily we were able to find the solution to an obscure question. In the old days, we would just leave it unanswered.
What would have been the best way for Doug to have provided a gentle rebuke to Peters too technical response? Well, if it had been a conversation between three people in a user-group meeting, Doug would have simply waited his turn and then tried to elucidate what Peter had been saying. Marc would have listened to both sides and formed his own opinion. Hey, were all geeks here. The fact that someone spoke in geek-speak is something weve all grown accustomed to and sometimes take comfort in. I know that the reason I got into computers is because I couldnt figure out the whole human-interaction thing.
But it wasnt a conversation it was a listserv. Doug could have responded to the list, but I think were sort of training ourselves to blog everything nowadays. It seemed like the topic of a good blog entry.
He could have made it not so obvious what prompted this entry, but I think that can be chalked up to innocence about human behavior. He just wanted the best for the ColdFusion community and didnt realize that posting a blog entry was tantamount to talking behind someones back (albeit into a tape-recorder).
By the same token, I think we all need to start coming to grips that people are going to talk about us in the media whereas before they were talking about us in regular conversation. Now that everyone has their own printing press, we are all potentially newsworthy. Celebrities and public speakers have had to endure the double edged sword of having people talk about them in the press and either misrepresenting what they were saying or outright lying about them. Perhaps we all need to get thick skins because in the future, everyones not only going to have their own printing press, but their own radio and television station as well!
Doug extolled us to take the time and care to respond to questions& It aint gonna happen. The days of everything going through a copy editor are gone. People are going to shoot from the hip and it will be left up the reader to sift through the mountain of information. Lets just be happy for the mountain!
Heck, in the old days, I would have let this response simmer for a day or two, maybe tightened it up a bit or added more to it later. But because its so easy to publish, Im just going to shoot from the hip and let it fly!
Whats the point of this whole response?
Doug and Peter: You two shake hands.
Hal Helms talks about how he takes interest whenever two equally intelligent people disagree on something. Id like to hear his take on all this.
Peter posted a response that Doug thought would seem unintelligible to Marc.
But the nature of the Internet is freedom of speech. I read that scribes used to lament the advent of the printing press because so much garbage was going to be printed in the future. Indeed, they were right. People can now read Danielle Steele instead of Holy Writ.
The Internet is a furtherance of that phenomenon. Now there is a mountain of information and people can read about the most inane stuff. So the reader is left to sift through the mountain of information, _but at least its out there_. Theres probably not a day that goes by without me turning to a colleague in amazement at how easily we were able to find the solution to an obscure question. In the old days, we would just leave it unanswered.
What would have been the best way for Doug to have provided a gentle rebuke to Peters too technical response? Well, if it had been a conversation between three people in a user-group meeting, Doug would have simply waited his turn and then tried to elucidate what Peter had been saying. Marc would have listened to both sides and formed his own opinion. Hey, were all geeks here. The fact that someone spoke in geek-speak is something weve all grown accustomed to and sometimes take comfort in. I know that the reason I got into computers is because I couldnt figure out the whole human-interaction thing.
But it wasnt a conversation it was a listserv. Doug could have responded to the list, but I think were sort of training ourselves to blog everything nowadays. It seemed like the topic of a good blog entry.
He could have made it not so obvious what prompted this entry, but I think that can be chalked up to innocence about human behavior. He just wanted the best for the ColdFusion community and didnt realize that posting a blog entry was tantamount to talking behind someones back (albeit into a tape-recorder).
By the same token, I think we all need to start coming to grips that people are going to talk about us in the media whereas before they were talking about us in regular conversation. Now that everyone has their own printing press, we are all potentially newsworthy. Celebrities and public speakers have had to endure the double edged sword of having people talk about them in the press and either misrepresenting what they were saying or outright lying about them. Perhaps we all need to get thick skins because in the future, everyones not only going to have their own printing press, but their own radio and television station as well!
Doug extolled us to take the time and care to respond to questions& It aint gonna happen. The days of everything going through a copy editor are gone. People are going to shoot from the hip and it will be left up the reader to sift through the mountain of information. Lets just be happy for the mountain!
Heck, in the old days, I would have let this response simmer for a day or two, maybe tightened it up a bit or added more to it later. But because its so easy to publish, Im just going to shoot from the hip and let it fly!
Whats the point of this whole response?
Doug and Peter: You two shake hands.
Posted by psenn on September 17, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
Hi Psenn. Yours and all of the other comments to my post are a great tribute to the collective wisdom posessed by the masses as a whole; the "mountain" of information you spoke of. I sincerely appreciate all of the feedback and dialogue.
Within my post itself I tried to keep everything anonymous, and in fact, until it was made known through the comments just who had actually posted the question and response, I myself didn't even know who had done it; it was never important to me who had actually penned it. In hindsight I should have rephrased my example. The fact that at this point in the thread it appears that I am seen as one who was attempting to rebuke Peter personally impels me to reiterate again that I was not calling anyone out, I was not pointing a spotlight at Peter, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the man and the knowledge he posesses and shares so freely. I repeat, nothing I said was directed at Peter, nothing. It's one of those opinions (yes, it is just my opinion) that you read and if the shoe fits, you wear it in the privacy of your own mind. I know that by not having the benefit of hindsight up front I DID end up offending some individuals personally, and for that I truly am sorry. But if at all possible, maybe we could just note, again, the fact that I commend Peter and all of the community for the time we all take to assist one another and I don't have a single arrow in my quiver with anybody's name on it.
Regarding my not posting to the list rather than share on my blog: When I first read the thread, my initial reaction was to respond with an answer I felt would be more beneficial to the asker, based on where I felt he or she was coming from. So, I actually started drafting my own version of an answer to his question. But the response I found myself drafting was getting longer and longer due to the ratio of thoughts on this matter to adressing the question itself,and by then others had responded to him anyway so I figured my two cents wasn't needed at that point. So, I let my thoughts flow onto my blog and the result was this post, the topic of which has actually been on my mind for quite some time now off and on.
I was not talking about anybody behind their back, it only took on that appearance when the example I used was publicly identified, and not by myself. The final paragraph of my post sums up my intentions wholly, and that summation is still just as accurate as when I shared my thoughts initially. I truly am sorry that those intentions became skewed through what are possibly misinterpretation and hurt feelings.
Can y'all ever forgive me? :0)
Within my post itself I tried to keep everything anonymous, and in fact, until it was made known through the comments just who had actually posted the question and response, I myself didn't even know who had done it; it was never important to me who had actually penned it. In hindsight I should have rephrased my example. The fact that at this point in the thread it appears that I am seen as one who was attempting to rebuke Peter personally impels me to reiterate again that I was not calling anyone out, I was not pointing a spotlight at Peter, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the man and the knowledge he posesses and shares so freely. I repeat, nothing I said was directed at Peter, nothing. It's one of those opinions (yes, it is just my opinion) that you read and if the shoe fits, you wear it in the privacy of your own mind. I know that by not having the benefit of hindsight up front I DID end up offending some individuals personally, and for that I truly am sorry. But if at all possible, maybe we could just note, again, the fact that I commend Peter and all of the community for the time we all take to assist one another and I don't have a single arrow in my quiver with anybody's name on it.
Regarding my not posting to the list rather than share on my blog: When I first read the thread, my initial reaction was to respond with an answer I felt would be more beneficial to the asker, based on where I felt he or she was coming from. So, I actually started drafting my own version of an answer to his question. But the response I found myself drafting was getting longer and longer due to the ratio of thoughts on this matter to adressing the question itself,and by then others had responded to him anyway so I figured my two cents wasn't needed at that point. So, I let my thoughts flow onto my blog and the result was this post, the topic of which has actually been on my mind for quite some time now off and on.
I was not talking about anybody behind their back, it only took on that appearance when the example I used was publicly identified, and not by myself. The final paragraph of my post sums up my intentions wholly, and that summation is still just as accurate as when I shared my thoughts initially. I truly am sorry that those intentions became skewed through what are possibly misinterpretation and hurt feelings.
Can y'all ever forgive me? :0)
Posted by dougboude on September 17, 2006 at 3:46 PM
Re: Responding Appropriately to ColdFusion Questions
psenn,
Clark Valberg pointed me to this blog thread. In reading through it, I have two thoughts. First, it's helpful if, rather than copying the exact words, the critic gets the same point across, but in a way that obscures who the original poster is. In fact, Doug did just this with his analogy of the little boy who wants to know how birds fly. Had he needed more specificity, a technical analogy would probably have worked as well. More work, yes, but if you want to avoid the kind of grief Doug has received, it's well worth it!
On the issue itself, I absolutely agree with Doug. Jargon is useful precisely because it is shorthand for various concepts. Introducing a term such as "polymorphism", for example, provides no new information. So, the use of jargon is not helpful for those trying to learn.
But worse, it's not helpful for the person giving the advice. There's an old maxim: if you want to understand something, teach it. We could rephrase this: if you want to find out if you really understand something, try teaching it. As someone who has done a lot of teaching, I've found that some of my deepest thoughts have come from explaining what I thought I knew -- only to discover that I really had only learned the jargon! This seems to be an occupational hazard in the IT world: thinking that learning jargon means that you have a deep understanding of the concepts. I forget who said it, but a favorite quote is: The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance, but the appearance of knowledge.
Personally, my mentors-- those I look up to -- eschew the use of jargon (and probably words like "eschew"!) when trying to explain something. It takes a very deep understanding of a subject to be able to translate it into the context of the person you're speaking to. If, on the other hand, you're trying to puff yourself up at someone else's expense -- why, jargon's just the thing.
Disclaimer: I'm not meaning to suggest that Peter had any such unworthy motives. But those who have spent any time on cftalk, for example, will probably recognize the pattern I'm speaking of.
Clark Valberg pointed me to this blog thread. In reading through it, I have two thoughts. First, it's helpful if, rather than copying the exact words, the critic gets the same point across, but in a way that obscures who the original poster is. In fact, Doug did just this with his analogy of the little boy who wants to know how birds fly. Had he needed more specificity, a technical analogy would probably have worked as well. More work, yes, but if you want to avoid the kind of grief Doug has received, it's well worth it!
On the issue itself, I absolutely agree with Doug. Jargon is useful precisely because it is shorthand for various concepts. Introducing a term such as "polymorphism", for example, provides no new information. So, the use of jargon is not helpful for those trying to learn.
But worse, it's not helpful for the person giving the advice. There's an old maxim: if you want to understand something, teach it. We could rephrase this: if you want to find out if you really understand something, try teaching it. As someone who has done a lot of teaching, I've found that some of my deepest thoughts have come from explaining what I thought I knew -- only to discover that I really had only learned the jargon! This seems to be an occupational hazard in the IT world: thinking that learning jargon means that you have a deep understanding of the concepts. I forget who said it, but a favorite quote is: The greatest obstacle to knowledge is not ignorance, but the appearance of knowledge.
Personally, my mentors-- those I look up to -- eschew the use of jargon (and probably words like "eschew"!) when trying to explain something. It takes a very deep understanding of a subject to be able to translate it into the context of the person you're speaking to. If, on the other hand, you're trying to puff yourself up at someone else's expense -- why, jargon's just the thing.
Disclaimer: I'm not meaning to suggest that Peter had any such unworthy motives. But those who have spent any time on cftalk, for example, will probably recognize the pattern I'm speaking of.
Posted by halhelms on September 17, 2006 at 10:14 PM